Suspension & Debarment

The Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee (ISDC) recently released its annual report to Congress regarding suspension and debarment across the federal government in FY 2019.  The report serves as a yearly reminder that while selling to the federal government – the largest purchaser of goods and services in the world – may present tremendous opportunities, it is not without risk or obligation.  As Justice Holmes stated in Rock Island, Arkansas & Louisiana R.R. Co. v. United States, 254 U.S. 141, 143 (1920), people “must turn square corners when they deal with the Government.”  Those that don’t may lose access to the federal marketplace altogether, a loss that can prove fatal to companies that are heavily reliant on government contracts or grants.

Overview of ISDC Report

The ISDC report, which is available here, shows that while the total number of actions nearly doubled over the last decade, the number of proposed debarments and debarments continues its steady decline that began in FY 2014.  While this might suggest that agencies are utilizing this administrative tool less frequently, a closer analysis of the report shows that is not the case.

In fact, the number of referrals to suspending and debarring officials (SDOs), as well as the number of suspensions, increased significantly from FY 2018 to FY 2019: referrals were up from 2,441 to 2,806 and suspensions increased from 480 to 722, due in large part to increased activity by the Air Force, the EPA, and the Department of Labor.  This uptick is likely the result of a multi-year effort to educate contracting officials about the importance of referring contractors to SDOs when their conduct indicates either serious poor performance or a lack of business honesty or integrity such that excluding them from the federal marketplace to protect the government from potential harm might be appropriate.Continue Reading Annual Suspension and Debarment Report Serves as a Reminder to “Turn Square Corners” When Dealing with the Government

On July 31, 2018, the Interagency Suspension and Debarment Committee delivered its annual report to Congress on the status of the suspension and debarment system. The report shows a continued high level of activity relative to the last decade and serves as a reminder that exclusion from the federal marketplace continues to be a risk for contractors that do not “cut square corners” with the government.

Decline in Suspensions May Indicate an Increase of Proactive Communication Between Contractors and Officials

The FY2017 report shows a modest decrease in the number of suspensions, proposed debarments, and debarments from the last fiscal year, a trend that has continued since the high-water mark set in FY2014. But it also notes that the number of exclusions in FY2017, over 3,000, are almost double those reported when the Committee first began formally tracking the data in FY2009, approximately 1,800.Continue Reading Slight Decrease in FY2017 Suspensions and Debarments, but Contractors Should Take Note of the Continued High Level of Activity

According to recent statistics, the numbers of suspension and debarment actions against companies and individuals has risen dramatically during the last few years. As cited in a recent article I authored for Law360, “[b]etween fiscal year 2009 and FY 2013, the number of suspensions government wide increased from 417 to 887, proposed debarments increased from

Billions of dollars every year are spent in the United States on “Federal health care programs,”¹ including Medicare, Medicaid and Tricare, among others.² For individuals and entities in the healthcare industry, reimbursement from these programs is a vital component of their business. However, many are unfamiliar with the authorities under which the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) excludes individuals and entities from participation in Federal health care programs, nor are they familiar with the nuances of the exclusion program. Understanding the types of violations that can trigger exclusion, as well as the process for responding to a proposed exclusion, is necessary for parties receiving reimbursement from Federal health care programs to ensure their compliance program is adequate and to understand the steps that must be taken to mitigate the impact of a proposed exclusion.


Pursuant to sections §1128 and §1156 of the Social Security Act (the “Act”), HHS, specifically the Office of the Inspector General (“OIG”), has the authority to exclude individuals and entities from Federal health care programs. Exclusion means that items and services furnished, ordered or prescribed by the excluded individual or entity are not reimbursable under Medicare, Medicaid and all other Federal health care programs. While exclusion by HHS is similar in some respects to suspension and debarment, it does not bar excluded parties from being awarded federal contracts and grants. Once a party is excluded from participation they are added to the List of Excluded Individuals/Entities (“LEIE”) maintained by HHS and the exclusion appears on the System for Award Management (“SAM”). Any healthcare entity participating in Federal health care programs that hires or contracts with an individual or entity on the LEIE may be subject to civil monetary penalties, so it is important that they establish processes and procedures to routinely (monthly is recommended) check the LEIE to ensure new hires, current employees, and potential contractors or subcontractors are not excluded.Continue Reading Exclusions by the Department of Health and Human Services – Authorities and Procedures

We are all familiar with the “revolving door” between the public and private sector – government employees will often leave their posts and cross over to the private sector to capitalize on their experience in the government. However, when government employees make that transition, it is imperative that they consider the federal conflict of interest laws, which may prohibit them from taking certain private sector positions and, at minimum, require them to be screened from particular types of work on a go forward basis. Failure to consider these laws could lead to severe consequences. A recent plea agreement highlights the importance of remaining mindful of these rules when negotiating post-government employment.

On Tuesday, March 11, 2015, former U.S. Air Force Captain Adam J. J. Pudenz pleaded guilty in Iowa federal court to violating restrictions on post-government employment and making a false statement to law enforcement agents. In 2010, Pudenz served as a U.S. military contracting officer in Afghanistan and worked on several U.S. government contracts related to the purchase of clothing and boots from an Afghan trading company. Pudenz admitted that before leaving his position as a contracting officer in Afghanistan, he negotiated future employment with the same Afghan company. Pudenz ultimately began working for the trading company and lobbied the U.S. government on matters related to the contracts he had previously managed.Continue Reading Recent Plea Deal Highlights Importance of Post-Government Employment Conflicts of Interest